"It is clear that the Alliance will seek to make this process unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated before the board can even make its initial determination on whether the franchise should be granted," the company's lawyers conclude.

Let's take a look at who is making the process "unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated," shall we?Each state has a different process for transmission line permitting. In Iowa, a hearing must be held if objections are filed, or when a petition involves the taking of property by eminent domain. The Alliance has helped lots of landowners file objections, therefore a hearing is guaranteed. Also, Iowa law requires informational meetings for landowners before they can be approached by RICL's land agents. But, because RICL will stretch across nearly 400 miles of Iowa, eminent domain will most likely be needed to secure easements. When a company files an application for its project, it must also state whether eminent domain will be sought. If so, the applicant must provide an "Exhibit E" with specific information on each property it expects to take by eminent domain, to include specific ownership, legal description, a map of the property showing buildings, electric lines, and other features, as well as the names of any tenants on the property.Clean Line can't be bothered to spend this much time and money on each property it wants to acquire, so they have asked the IUB to bifurcate (separate) the franchise process into two separate proceedings. First, Clean Line wants the IUB to determine if its project is needed and serves a public purpose. That way Clean Line can try to keep affected landowners out of that part of the process. Only after that determination has been made would Clean Line bother to spend the money to provide "Exhibit E" information for eminent domain takings. Clean Line also states that an affirmative determination granting it the requested franchise would "put Clean Line in a better position" to spend the money. What they really mean is that it would put them into a better position to threaten landowners and tell them it's a done deal, hoping that would result in less eminent domain takings and less "Exhibit E" material.Let's take a minute here to talk about Clean Line's "RSVP" for the initial public hearings. I'm not sure why the IUB let them get away with this, but landowner notice of the project and meetings included a superfluous "RSVP" for the meeting, and a "request for information." What kind of information does RICL want? "Exhibit E" info. it would have a hard time gathering on its own, the names of any tenants. This is the same info. it is whining about having to supply in order to apply for eminent domain.Much to Clean Line's chagrin, however, the Alliance has some very smart attorneys who have filed a motion to resist the motion to bifurcate. First of all, they argue that a motion to bifurcate is premature until the actual application for the franchise is filed because it deprives any potential intervenors of due process to object to the bifurcation. They also note that Clean Line unsuccessfully lobbied for legislation to bifurcate the franchise process in 2011. What Clean Line was unsuccessful at legislatively, they are now trying to acquire through the IUB. They also point out how Clean Line intends to use any potential approval of the franchise before eminent domain proceedings to coerce landowners to voluntarily sign easement agreements.Now, here's where it gets funny. Clean Line starts to squeal and whine. First, they want to limit the Alliance's participation in the case. I'm sure our friends in Kansas, who were denied due process by having their own participation limited by the KCC, will identify with this tactic:

And then Clean Line starts whining about how it got outsmarted by quoting information it harvested from the Alliance's website:

...the motive of the Alliance is clear: to make sure Clean Line does not build this transmission line. A recent statementfrom the Alliance Board President Carolyn Sheridan to the Alliance members concisely details the strategy:"From the Board PresidentThink about it: Imagine you're [Rock Island Clean Line ("RICL")] and you have to file allthis information about a parcel of land in a distant location: How much time would it takeyou to learn the names and addresses of all persons with an ownership interest in the land?How much work would it be for you to prepare a map showing the location of all electriclines and supports within the proposed easement; and the location of and distance to any building w/in 1OOft. of the proposed line? A lot of work. Multiply that by hundreds; andyou have an idea of how important it is to the success of RICL's project that it obtains.The more parcels upon which RICL has to do all this work, the less likely this project is tosucceed. Every parcel upon which it has to do all this work is one more shovel of dirt onthe grave of this RICL line. Join the opponents of the line. DO NOT sign an easemnts[sic] with RICL.Carolyn SheridanBoard President"Without bifurcation, it is clear that the Alliance will seek to make this process unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated before the Board can even make its initial determination on whether the Franchise should be granted.

Umm... so? The Alliance is just using existing laws that were put in place to protect Iowa landowners from out-of-state speculators like Clean Line. If the process is "overly complicated" Clean Line ought to be taking its whining to the Iowa legislature, who made this law.Clean Line also gives away another one of its strategies: to financially break the Alliance by requiring them to participate in two separate legal processes, hoping they'll run out money and determination somewhere along the way.I really don't think Clean Line's strategy is working. It's only encouraging landowners to dig in even deeper and resist a voluntary easement. If Clean Line is going to be met with a brick wall in either case, why bother with two different hearings? That doesn't serve administrative efficiency.And this about sums up Clean Line's little pity party:

The Alliance seeks to force Clean Line to waste time and resources, and consequently also the time and resources of the IUB, with the hope that Clean Line eventually givesup on the project.

What arrogance from Houston to come into our homes and tell our state regulatory commissions the voices and co mm cerns of the residents should not be heard. So if Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas residents hould not be allowed to questionthe legitimacyof this company, who will properly vet this company?

It's insulting for Texas billionaires to disregard the voices of stakeholders so much that they argue our concerns are irrelevant. Michael Skelly and Jimmy Glotfelty tried a similar tactic in Illinois in an attempt to deny our voice in the process.

This shows the ethics of this company and we all should ask what are the companies I tentions after these projects are built. Energy trading?

Play the MISO market off the PJM markets is a likely scenario. By attempting to disenfranchise residents in Iowa, Kansas, and Illinois, nClean Line Energy's actions have done nothing to aleve our concerns this is the making of the next ENRON.

Reply

Thomas Inskeep

11/25/2013 07:55:24 am

This following quote is almost identical to what CLE told to The Kansas Corporation Commission about CLEANR, just change it to CLEANR instead of the Alliance.

Clean Line does not object to the Alliance's limited intervention at this stage; however, Clean Line reserves the right to request specific limitations be placed on such participation depending upon the participation of other parties who may have the same interest as the Alliance. Such limitations may include but shall not be limited to prohibiting the Alliance from preparing direct testimony, submitting exhibits or other evidence, or conducting cross examination of witnesses. If the Alliance seeks to "advance the mutual arguments of all its members" as stated in its Petition to Intervene, limiting its participation to briefing legal arguments will satisfy the Alliance's goal.

CLE claims they wanted landowner participation, but every time someone tried to participate CLE would whine to the KCC and cry foul. If you read some of the filings on the KCC website you can hear how CLE was almost spanking the KCC for even allowing any input from landowners at the final hearing. Unfortunately the Kansas statutes are written with a 120 day requirement for the process and there was no way to slow down the train wreck once it started. The Kansas eminent domain laws are so weak at protecting the Kansas landowners that CLE was able to seize the property rights of thousands of Kansas landowners with the authority the Kansas legislature has granted to the KCC. I am glad that Iowa and Illinois and hopefully Missouri have stronger laws preventing this land grab. The Kansas legislature needs to review and strengthen these laws in Kansas or this will continue to happen over and over.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About the Author

Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

AboutStopPATH Blog

StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project. The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view. If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty. People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself. If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.